“It is the greatest good to the greatest number of
people which is the measure of right and wrong.”--Jeremy Bentham

“To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some
meaning in the suffering.”--Nietzsche

“When motherhood becomes the fruit of a
deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will
become the foundation of a new race.”--Margaret Sanger

The ideal Renaissance individual, termed “Renaissance Man,” has wide interests and is expert in numerous areas: art, literature, philosophy, sciences and math. Such inquisitive and ardent learners stand out in every generation. They are people who think for themselves and are eager to investigate, explore and discover. These individuals gained recognition through outstanding personal achievements. Such people are willing to try different ways of doing things: new techniques in painting; new literary styles, and new perspectives on the world. They are optimistic about the potential of human reason and creativity.

This optimism
characterized both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. During the
Enlightenment there was a continued emphasis on individual accomplishment in
the West. This spirit of inquiry paved the way for the Modern Era. People began
to express new ways of thinking philosophically and to experiment in
laboratories. They invented new machines and developed new technologies.
Adventurers like Charles Darwin explored distant lands and encountered
unfamiliar species of plants and animals.

As during the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment, the great breakthroughs of the Modern Era
were the result of individual achievements. Consider this list of significant
contributions made by individuals between 1605 and 1775:

·René
Descartes revolutionized algebra and geometry, and developed deductive method
of reasoning

·Joseph
Priestly discovered oxygen (1774)

Advancement in Science Depends on Individuals

As the American
historian Thomas Kuhn demonstrated in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the great breakthroughs in
science were made by individuals: Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein are examples. None were
part of a scientific community. Add to this list Darwin, Marx, and Freud, none of whom were
academics working within institutions. All brought about a “paradigm shift” that would greatly influence the
shape, perspective, and development of new fields.

A prime example
of the contribution of individuals to science is Antony van Leeuwenhoek
(1632-1723). He came from a family of Dutch tradesmen and never attended the
university. He was not part of the scientific community. Yet his curiosity and
hard work led Leeuwenhoek to some of the most important discoveries in the
history of biology. He discovered bacteria, free-living and parasitic
microscopic protists, sperm cells, blood cells, and microscopic nematodes and
rotifers. His research radically changed world awareness of microscopic
organisms and led to more sanitary conditions in hospitals and homes.

Today we speak of
innovators like Kepler and Leeuwenhoek as people who “stepped out of the box.”
These individuals were more concerned with discovery than with what people
thought of them. They were not afraid to take a risk. The values of
individualism and innovation created an environment where individual
achievement and discovery was encouraged. This is true in the Occident (western
world), but not generally true in the Oriental (eastern word). In the East
breaking with the customs and values of one’s ancestors was largely
discouraged. This is one reason that the West advanced ahead of the East in
science and technology and kept that advantage until the 20th
century.

The cultural and
intellectual changes in Europe during the 1500s and 1600s produced sweeping
changes in Europe and the Americas
in the late 1700s, the beginning of the Modern Era. The innovations and
discoveries of the 17th and 18th centuries brought about
the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions. Unlike the French and American
revolutions, these were largely non-violent events.

The Scientific
Revolution

During the
Scientific Revolution of the late 1500s and 1600s new tools and machines
changed the daily lives of most people. These included the printing press,
steam engines, the cotton gin, the telegraph, and the first sewing machine. New
technologies were possible because of willingness to experiment and innovate.
This was being done on a scale never before seen in Europe.

A fundamental
feature of the Scientific Revolution was the development and refinement of the
scientific method. The scientific method uses observation and experimentation
to test hypotheses about the workings of the material world. This research
approach is the basis for modern science and is termed the “empirical method.”

Scientific MethodCourtesy William Harris

The empirical
method has validated some theories held from very ancient times such as the
mysterious nature of blood (hematology) and proved others to be inaccurate,
such as the view that the earth is at the center of the solar system. It has
shown some ancient theories to be deficient, though not entirely wrong, such as
the binary feature (man-female) required for human reproduction, and the
features of bilaterialism and a bicameral brain as precursors of greater
complexity.

The binary
feature in human perception has been studied by anthropologists, the most
famous of whom is Claude Lévi-Strauss who observed binary thinking among
preliterate Amazon peoples. Lévi-Strauss showed that both primitive and modern
people think in terms of binary sets:
raw-cooked, male-female, dark-light, wet-dry. He found that binary thinking is one of the
"underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity."

The Industrial
Revolution

Man is the rational
animal with the special genius to establish social controls, organize for war
and commerce, and improve his living conditions through innovation and
technology. This human potential seemed boundless during the Industrial Revolution (1760-1852), a
time in which wealthy industrialists built factories, railroads, and steam
ships, and created jobs for workers. The growth of national economies inspired
the attitude that progress could be made and problems could be solved. R.M.
Hartwell addresses this in his book The Industrial Revolution and Economic
Growth (London: Methuen and Co. 1971). He explains:

The new attitude to
social problems that emerged with the industrial revolution was that ills
should be identified, examined, analyzed, publicized, and remedied, either by
voluntary or legislative action. Thus evils that had long existed—child labor,
for instance—and had long been accepted as inevitable, were regarded as new
ills to be remedied rather than old ills to be endured (Hartwell, p. 343).

Indeed many of history’s greatest social reforms took place between 1760 and
1852. In 1791, Thomas Paine wrote The Rights of Man.
Reflecting on the victory of American independence and the message it sent to
the old powers of Europe, Paine wrote: “From a small spark, kindled in America,
a flame has arisen not to be extinguished… it winds its progress from nation to
nation, and conquers by a silent operation. Man finds himself changed, he
scarcely perceives how. He acquires a knowledge of his rights by attending
justly to his interest, and discovers in the event that the strength and powers
of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it, and that, in order
"to be free, it is sufficient that he wills it” (The Rights of Man,
chapter 5).

In 1792, Mary
Wollstonecraft wrote about women’s rights, arguing against the prevalent
paternalistic view of marriage: “The divine right of husbands, like the divine
rights of kings, may, it is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested
without danger” (A Vindication of the
Rights of Woman: with Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects).

Between
1830 and 1840 all white males received the right to vote. Before this only white men who owned land
were able to vote. During the late 19th century and early 20th century, some
women in some areas were able to vote, but universal suffrage for women was not
guaranteed until 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, which provided: "The right of citizens of the
United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or
by any State on account of sex."

In 1793, Francis Place
organized the first trade strike in Britain. Place was involved with
virtually every reform movement that took place in England between 1790 and 1854.

In 1852, Harriet Beecher Stowe published Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a work that had a
profound effect on American sentiments about slavery.

The optimism stirred by economic growth, new inventions, and expanding frontiers in America permeated every area of social and political thought in the 18th century. Capitalism was viewed as a means of economic progress, and in Adam Smith’s celebrated treatise An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, it was presented as the ideal system for the development of wealth. Smith’s treatise was the first serious study of capitalism and the historical development of industry and commerce in Europe.

The emergence of a new class of rich industrialists raised
questions about their moral obligation to workers. The greatest critic of the
wealth of industrialists was the German Jew Karl Marx,
whose book Communist Manifesto became
the Bible for Socialists and Communists. Marx addressed the issue of class
antagonism. He wrote, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles."

Marx advocated the uprising of workers against their pay
masters and a world without Jews. He regarded his fellow European Jews as
greedy businessmen and bankers who corrupted society by lending money at
interest (usury). He wrote:

"Money is the
zealous one God of Israel,
beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and
turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value
set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world.”

"What is the
object of the Jew's worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly God?
Money.”

"Very well then:
emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would
constitute the emancipation of our time."

Marx’s book The World
Without Jews contributed to economic anti-Semitism, an movement that blames
the Jews for the negative aspects of capitalism. Marx argued that earning
a living by collecting interest of loans is a form of capitalistic exploitation
of the working class.

Adam Smith and Karl Marx held diametrically opposite views,
yet both greatly influenced political and economic developments in the Modern
Era. The opposition of their ideas underscores the Modern Era as a time of
ideological opposition and contradiction. The competing modern ideologies
expressed themselves in numerous conflicts: World War I, The Spanish Civil War
(1936-1939), World War II, and the Cold War. In ethics, the contradiction is
represented by the Kantian system of deontological ethics and Bentham’s
utilitarian ethics.

Ethical Concerns of the Modern Era

Many ethical concerns of the Modern Era hinge on new
ideologies such as Socialism, Communism and Fascism. Some arise as responses to
philosophical views such as Nihilism, Skepticism, Perspectivism, Existentialism
and Supernaturalism. Many ethical concerns of the Modern Era are related to
technological advances. Factories created jobs, but not always the best working
conditions. Smoke from factories caused air pollution which made living conditions
hazardous in large urban centers like London and
Chicago.

Here are the main ethical concerns of the Modern Era:

The Ethics of Wealth Creation and Management

Critique of Capitalism

The Evolution of Man and Social Darwinism

The Search for Meaning

Deontological Ethics

Utilitarian Ethics

Modern Romanticism

Nietzsche’s Immoralism

Kierkegaard’s Supernaturalism

Adam Smith (1723-1790)

Adam Smith believed that
humans were innately compassionate once they were faced with the suffering of
others. He argues that this occurs
either when we witness the fortune or misfortune of another person, or when the
fortune or misfortune is vividly depicted to us. He developed this idea
in The
Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). In this work, Smith sets down the ethical, philosophical, and
methodological foundation for his later best-known work The Wealth of Nations (1776). The Theory of Moral Sentimentsbegins
with the following assertion:

“How selfish soever
man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which
interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to
him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. Of
this kind is pity or compassion, the emotion we feel for the misery of others,
when we either see it, or are made to conceive it in a very lively manner. That
we often derive sorrow from the sorrows of others, is a matter of fact too
obvious to require any instances to prove it; for this sentiment, like all the
other original passions of human nature, is by no means confined to the
virtuous or the humane, though they perhaps may feel it with the most exquisite
sensibility. The greatest ruffian, the most hardened violator of the laws of
society, is not altogether without it.”

Smith believed humans have a
natural tendency to care about one another, and asserted that we derive
pleasure from seeing other people’s happiness. Smith used the term
“sympathy” in a psychological way; that is to imagine oneself in another’s
situation, what we call “empathy.” He derived his theory of the imagination
from his good friend, David Hume.Smith believed
that sympathy arises from an innate desire to identify with the emotions of
others. It operates through a logic, whereby a spectator imaginatively
reconstructs the experience of the person he watches.Smith wrote,“As we have no immediate experience of what other
men feel, we can form no idea of the manner in which they are affected, but by
conceiving what we ourselves should feel in the like situation. Though our
brother is on the rack, as long as we ourselves are at our ease, our senses
will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did, and never can, carry
us beyond our own person, and it is by the imagination only that we can form
any conception of what are his sensations. Neither can that faculty help us to
this any other way, than by representing to us what would be our own, if we
were in his case. It is the impressions of our own senses only, not those of
his, which our imaginations copy. By the imagination, we place ourselves in his
situation.”

Smith believed
that this innate moral sentiment makes us desire to obey the natural laws. This
innate sympathy makes cooperation possible, contributing to good relations and
the general social order.

Smith’s optimism
about human sympathy and desire to cooperate for the common good was balanced
by his recognition of human greed. However, Smith shows that a free
market economy does not depend on greed; indeed, Smith's notion of
self-interest is quite different to greed. In Smith’s thinking, the wise man
will always act in his self-interest to provide for his health and well-being,
and do the same for his family. The man who does not act to provide for himself
and his family is regarded as morally deficient. But Smith expands this to
include actions taken for the well-being of relatives, friends, neighbors and
acquaintances. In other words, the wise man must consider the well-being of
others along with his personal well-being, performing actions consistent with
the highest moral sentiments.

Smith formulated original theories of conscience, moral
judgment and the virtues. His enlightened idea of ethics as a science
encompasses politics, economics, and law and government.

The Search for Meaning

In his youth, the French philosopher Voltaire advocated a
hedonistic lifestyle, embracing worldly pursuits in order “to flee sadness in
the arms of pleasure.” There was a hopeless quality to his early thought that
resembles the nihilism of the ancient Greek philosopher Gorgias. The nihilist
believes that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or
communicated. This generally produces a sense that life is meaningless.
Nihilism is a philosophical dead end because there is nothing to discuss if all
truth claims are baseless and no truth can be communicated. Since there is no
basis for determining moral values or defining what constitutes happiness,
nihilism offers nothing to ethics.

In the ancient world, philosophers discussed happiness as a
virtue. In a letter to one of his students, Epicurus wrote, “We recognize
pleasure as the first and natural good…” Plato and Aristotle treated happiness
as the supreme good, though they did not agree on how happiness was to be
achieved. For Aristotle, happiness means thriving in all aspects of one’s life
in order to fulfill one’s destiny. For Aristotle, this was largely an
intellectual pursuit, though he recognized that happiness is more easily
achieved where there is good government and a stable economy.

In the Modern Era, Adam Smith considered happiness to be
absolutely dependent upon good government, human kindness, and expanding
economic opportunities (capitalism). He articulated a balance between
self-interest and the interests of others in order to achieve happiness for the
greater number.

Smith did not believe that poverty could be completely eliminated through capitalism. He considered capitalism to be the best approach to building personal fortunes and those who have the resources should use them to help alleviate suffering. This is the philosophy underlying American philanthropy. Some of the greatest public servants were the great American philanthropists of the 19th century.

Smith’s approach has less following in America today. Public welfare and
other entitlements administered by the Federal government represent a different
approach to the problem of poverty involving redistribution of wealth through
taxation of the rich.

While wealth redistribution and programs like food stamps
and school lunch subsidies can help to alleviate human suffering, they do not
bring meaning to our daily lives. The plague of Modern Man is the loss of
meaning or a sense of purpose for one’s life.

Many factors contributed to the loss of meaning in the
Modern Era. Philosophical nihilism and a breakdown of close family and
communities ties were significant factors, but other factors were significant
also. There was a growing sense that humans are insignificant in comparison to
the immensity of the expanding universe. The new scientific materialism
stressed that the existence of God or the soul cannot be proved and tended to
portray people of faith as deluded individuals. Social Darwinism had the effect
of reducing the value of human life, especially that of infants, minorities,
the poor, the handicapped, and the mentally retarded.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882)

The influence of Darwin’s
writings, especially The Origin of
Species, was pervasive and the cause of great debate at the dawn of
modernism. Darwin introduced
the theory that populations evolve over the
course of generations through a process of natural
selection. His writings presented evidence that the diversity of
life arose by common descent through a branching pattern
of evolution. Darwin included
evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in
the 1830s and through subsequent research.

A youthful Charles Darwin

Painted after his voyage on the Beagle (1931-1936)

Darwin’s
ideas have been applied to social patterns in the works of social Darwinians.
In their view, societies can evolve through the mechanism of natural selection
and survival of the fittest. Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the
fittest.” He was an early social Darwinist, along with Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton. They believed an ideal society might be
achieved through discouraging the reproduction of inferior humans. From the
beginning, social Darwinism had racial overtones.

Since 2002, state governments in Virginia,
Oregon, and South Carolina, have published apologies to
tens of thousands of women who were sterilized against their will in state
hospitals between the 1900s and 1960s. In March 2003, California Governor Gray
Davis and Attorney General Lockyer issued statements of regret for the
injustices committed in the name of "race betterment.” The involuntary
sterilization laws, enacted in the early 1900s, were not repealed until 1979.

Darwinism and eugenics became comrades in demonstrating that
traits such as disease and lack of intelligence were inherited and that
selecting against these traits would benefit society. The idea targeted the
poor, although history has shown that many great contributors to societal good
have been people who began their lives in poverty. The leading 20th century
economist, John
Maynard Keynes, was a staunch eugenicist who served as the director of
the Eugenics Society in Britain
from 1937 to 1944.

In the United
States, eugenics persisted among the
intellectual “elite” and was supported by racial discrimination. The founder of
Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a member of the American Eugenics Society,
an organization that promotedsterilization of poor, mostly black women.Sanger said,
“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to
kill it.”

Eugenics became less attractive when many of the elite
became poor as a result of the Great Depression. Popularity of the Darwinian
ideal of a “higher humanity” further declined when the atrocities of the
Holocaust became more widely known. Social Darwinism found expression in the
Nazi dogma of a superior Aryan race.

Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804)

The work of Immanuel Kant
is unusual in that he proclaimed duty, not happiness, to be the supreme ethical
motivation. He insisted that the only way a person can be happy is in the
fulfillment of his duty simply because it is his duty. Kant holds that “Duty is the necessity
to act out of reverence for the law.”
Such action has in itself the fruit of happiness.

Kant defines
virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in fulfilling his
duty.” According to Kant, the nature of morality is to do one’s duty
even when we are not inclined to do it. Someone who does his duty to appear
virtuous is not moral. Someone who does his duty to get it over and done with,
or to avoid negative consequences, is not moral. The moral person does his duty
simply because it is his duty. This is called “deontological ethics.”

Kant called the central principle of his ethical theory the
“Categorical Imperative.” His moral philosophy involves three formulations: the
Formula of Universal Law, the Formula of the End in Itself, and the Formula of Autonomy.

The “Formula of
Universal Law” holds that it is morally imperative to chose actions that
correspond to universal laws of nature. According to Kant, “the agent’s maxim”
is the person’s action paired with its motivation. For example: "I will
steal for personal benefit." Stealing is the action, and the motivation is
to get what I desire. Paired together they form my maxim. To judge the morality
of my maxim I now must imagine a world in which everyone in my situation steals
for personal benefit. What kind of world would that be? It would be futile, contradictory and
irrational since none would benefit in a world where everyone steals. Since such a world is clearly irrational,
acting on my maxim to steal for personal benefit is not moral. However, if I
can imagine an action and motivation in the possible world where there is no
contradiction or irrationality, acting on that maxim is permissible, and
probably morally required.

Kant’s “Formula of the End-in-Itself,” commands that one
treat all humans as an end and never merely as a means to an end. This approach
upholds the dignity of each individual human. Kant writes, “He who is thinking
of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using
another man merely as a mean, without the latter containing at the same time
the end in himself. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own
purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting towards him, and therefore
cannot himself contain the end of this action.”

The “Formula of
Autonomy” is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the
"complete determination of all maxims." Act consistent with your
maxims as a legislator of universal laws. The focus shifts from our status as
universal law followers (Formula of Universal Law)to universal law givers.
In order to be legislators of universal laws, we are required to conform our
actions and decisions to principles that express the autonomy of our rational
will. The Autonomy Formulation stresses the source of our dignity and
worth as free rational agents with moral authority to determine the moral laws
that bind us.

Kant’s Idea of Happiness

Much of what Kant wrote was an attempt to defend the
Christian understanding of God and divine revelation against David Hume’s
skepticism. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant agrees with
Hume that there is no absolute ground to assume the existence of God. However, against Hume, he adds that the idea of God is intrinsically connected
to happiness and morality as the “ideal of the supreme good.” In his later
treatment on Logic (1800), Kant argues that the idea of God is proved
only through the moral law and only with “the intent so as to act as if
there be a God.”

Kant argued that the source of the good lies in the human subject, not in nature or divine revelation. A good will is one that acts from duty in accordance with the universal moral law that the autonomous human being freely applies to himself. This law obliges one to treat humanity as an end in itself rather than as something to be used to achieve ends selfish ends.

Kant’s moral philosophy represents an absolutist moral
system, that is to say that he regarded some acts always to be wrong,
regardless of the situation. He falls squarely in the Judeo-Christianity moral
tradition and follows Plato and Aristotle.
However, as influential as Kant’s system of Deontological Ethics was, it
had its detractors, in the persons of Arthur Schopenhauer, Jeremy Bentham, and
Friedrich Nietzsche.

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Arthur Schopenhauer
was a German philosopher of considerable brilliance. He is unique in
intellectual history for being both an atheist and sympathetic to
Christianity. He found that it is possible to establish a moral standard which
reflects the same values taught by the great religions of Christianity,
Hinduism, and Buddhism. This moral standard applies to all human beings and is
therefore a universal standard of morality.
It is a standard set by the motive of compassion, which includes the
cardinal virtues of natural justice and loving kindness.
Schopenhauer explains: “Whoever is filled with compassion will assuredly injure
no one, do harm to no one, encroach on no man’s rights; he will rather have
regard for everyone, forgive everyone as far as he can, and all of his actions
will bear the stamp of justice and loving kindness.”

Schopenhauer was acutely aware of the suffering in the world
and believed that the cause of continual strife and sorrow is conflict between
individual wills. The world is a place of unsatisfied wants and suffering. He
echoes Adam Smith’s idea of “sympathy,” maintaining that when the moral will
feels another’s hurt as its own, it makes an effort to relieve the pain.

In his most important work, The
World as Will and Representation(1818), Schopenhauer stresses a Buddhist-like renunciation of
worldly desires as a way to escape pain (Schopenhauer studied Buddhist and
Hindu texts). Escape is possible through the eradication of our desires and
instincts, what he called “a negation of the will.” He also advocated temporary
relief of pain through philosophy, art, and especially music.

An early animal rights advocate, Schopenhauer said, “The
assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment
of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western
crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of
morality."

Schopenhauer’s Argument with Kant

Kant claimed that virtuous living results
from practical reason. Schopenhauer claimed that virtuous conduct has nothing
to do with reason and may even be opposed to it, as with Machiavelli’s rational
expediency. In the face of a bloody civil war in Italy (1502-03) that involved mass
killing, street assassinations, and widespread anarchy, Machiavelli wrote:

I say that every prince ought to desire to be considered
clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse
this clemency. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel; notwithstanding, his
cruelty reconciled the Romagna, unified it, and restored it to peace and
loyalty. And if this be rightly considered, he will be seen to have been
much more merciful than the Florentine people, who, to avoid a reputation for
cruelty, permitted Pistoia
to be destroyed. Therefore a prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united
and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few
examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow
disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont
to injure the whole people, whilst those executions which originate with a
prince offend the individual only.

In other words, reason might lead, as it does in
Machiavelli’s mind, to actions which in most contexts are regarded as immoral.
Schopenhauer discredited Kant’s moral system on mainly because it is based on
individual duty. He believed that the individual’s sense of duty cannot be the
grounds for every moral decision or action. Instead he emphasized that a study
of the great world religions suggests a universal moral code which he expressed
in these words: “Don't do to
another what you don't want done to you.”

Schopenhauer’s Views on the State

Schopenhauer was a citizen of Prussia, the first government to
implement compulsory public education (1819), with the goal of producing
citizens who thought alike about major issues. Other components Prussian state
control included public pensions, laws prohibiting citizens to bear arms, state
identification papers, and military conscription. Unlike Hegel, who taught
philosophy at several Prussian universities as an employee of the state,
Schopenhauer tried to avoid being co-opted by the Prussian thought police. Not
surprisingly, his political views were quite contrary to those of Hegel.

This is what Schopenhauer wrote about Hegel and his state-loving cohorts:
“It is easy to see the ignorance and triviality of those philosophers who, in
pompous phrases, represent the state as the supreme goal and greatest
achievement of mankind and thereby achieve the apotheosis of philistinism.”
Schopenhauer’s view of the state is one that Americans would share. He believed
in the separation of the branches of government to create a system of checks
and balances. He writes in The World
as Will and Representation:

“The State is nothing more than an
institution of protection, rendered necessary by the manifold attacks to which
man is exposed, and which he is not able to ward off as an individual, but only
in alliance with others. [This] protection [includes] the safeguarding of
private right. But, as is usual in things human, the removal of one evil
generally opens the way to a fresh one, [which requires] protection against the
protection… This seems most completely attainable by dividing and separating
from one another the threefold unity of protective power, the legislative, the
judicative, and the executive, so that each is managed by others, and
independently of the rest.”

Like Hobbes, Schopenhauer saw the brutishness of human existence, but unlike
Hobbes, he believed that the solution was to be found in increased knowledge,
not in the protection of the State. He wrote:“This world is the battle-ground of
tormented and agonized beings who continue to exist only by each devouring the
other. Therefore, every beast of prey in it is the living grave of thousands of
others, and its self-maintenance is a chain of torturing deaths. Then in this
world the capacity to feel pain increases with knowledge, and therefore reaches
its highest degree in man, a degree that is the higher, the more intelligent
the man” (On the Vanity and Suffering of Life).

Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

Bentham was a British philosopher, economist and lawyer who formulated utilitarianism.
Like Schopenhauer, he was an
advocate of animal rights. Unlike Schopenhauer, he supported broad government
involvement in citizen’s affairs. Bentham’s philosophy is the opposite of
Kant’s deontological ethics. He does not see universal moral laws that are binding
on all people at all times and in all places. For Bentham, what makes a law or
policy right is its utility in bringing “the greatest happiness of the greatest
number.” This is called the “happiness principle” or the “principal of
utility.”

Bentham’s approach to moral choices is based on the
“principle of utility” (borrowed from Hume), and the “principle of extension.”
The first directs us to decisions that increase the happiness of the greatest
number of people across the social spectrum. The second directs us to decisions
that increase the happiness of the party whose interest is in question. Bentham
hoped that British law makers would apply this approach when considering new
laws.

Bentham's so-called “happiness principle” refers to the
extent to which actions promote the general happiness. What is morally
obligatory is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the
greatest number of people, and creates the least amount of pain. He writes, “By
the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves
of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have
to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in
question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose
that happiness.”

While Kant
identified happiness with moral duty, Bentham identified happiness with
pleasure and the avoidance of pain. In Introduction
of the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he wrote:

“Nature has placed mankind under the governance
of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out
what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand,
the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects,
are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in
all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve
but to demonstrate and confirm it.”

Benthamthoroughly
rejected the Enlightenment belief in natural law on the grounds that no two
people could agree what is was. He also rejected the notion of natural rights
because such an idea seemed to stir violence and bloodshed, such as were
witnessed in the French Revolution. If there is no natural law and no natural rights
then no class of actions can be categorized as immoral. Instead it is the
consequences of an action that indicate whether it is immoral or moral. Here we
see how Bentham departs most moral philosophers who believe that some kinds of
actions (murder and adultery, for example) are always intrinsically wrong and
should never be done. Bentham, on the other hand, believes that the morality of
an action should be judged by its consequences and that no class of action is
intrinsically wrong. His approach to moral philosophy is called
“consequentialist.”

Bentham believed
that real rights were established by laws enacted by lawmakers. He proposed many legal and social reforms
himself, not on the basis of natural rights, but on the basis of his
utilitarian principle of extension,
that is how widely the pains and pleasures of a law or policy will be felt
across the social spectrum. This is not as subjective as it may first appear.
Bentham developed what he called a “felicific calculus” which enabled him to
estimate the amount of pleasure and pain likely to come as a consequence of an
action or policy.

Bentham held that calculating the pleasures and pains caused
by a course of action involves a commitment to human equality. The principle of
utility presupposes that “one man is worth just the same as another man” and so
there is an egalitarian guarantee that “each person is to count for one and no
one for more than one.”

Bentham's moral philosophy reflects his view that the
primary motivators in human beings are pleasure and pain. He argues that, if
pleasure is the good, it is good regardless of whose pleasure it is. This being
the case, the pursuit of maximum pleasure has moral force independent of the
interests of the individual acting. As with Adam Smith, Bentham holds that
individuals should seek the general happiness simply because the interests of
others are inextricably bound up with their own. He proposes that the
identification of interests and the bringing together of diverse interests is
the responsibility of lawmakers.

Bentham’s utilitarianism met with opposition in Nietzsche’s perspectivism,
which we consider next.

Nietzsche called himself an “immoralist” and
criticized the thought of just about every moral philosopher. He wrote, “Whether it be hedonism or
pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which
assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say
according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought
and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s
conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands,
7:225).

Nietzsche’s moral
framework is his own peculiar interpretation of history. He says that history
reveals two kinds of morality, the morality of the masters and the morality of
the slaves. The master morality ascribes
to itself noble qualities such as bravery, daring, truthfulness and blondness,
but regards inferiors as swarthy cowards, given to lies and vulgarity.
Nietzsche’s philosophy calls for the strong of the world to assert their power
and it glorifies conquerors like Alexander the Great and Napolean.

According to Nietzsche, the weak
constructed a different system of values and morals which stressed humility,
sympathy and cooperation among themselves as the underdog. He called this “a transvaluation of values”
and he blamed it on the Jews. He wrote, “It was the Jews who, reversing the
aristocratic equation (good = noble = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods),
dared with a frightening consistency to suggest the contrary equation, and to
hold on to it with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the
powerless)” (On the Genealogy of Morals
19).

Nietzsche held that the revolt of
the slaves reached it peak in first-century Christianity. He blamed Christianity for the downfall of
ancient Rome,
the fatherland of aristocratic virtues embodied in the Caesars. Rome was destroyed, in
Nietzsche’s mind, because people began to honor four Jews: Jesus, Mary, Peter and Paul (GM 36).
He argues that the success of Christianity meant the degeneration of the
virtuous ideals of power in favor of compassion for the lowly.

He believed that immoral rulers
and those who sought world domination embody the highest morality. He praised Napoleon as one who showed the
world what it means to be noble. He wrote:

“But there are cases where a leader or bell-wether is felt to be
indispensable; in such cases people keep trying to set up an aggregation of
clever herd-men in place of real commanders: that is the origin, for instance,
of all parliamentary constitutions. But
what a blessing, in spite of everything, what a release from an increasingly
unbearable burden is the appearance of an absolute commander of these
herd-Europeans! This was demonstrated
most recently by the effect of Napoleon when he appeared on the scene. The
history of the impact of Napoleon can be said to be the history of the highest
happiness this entire century has achieved…” (Beyond Good and Evil 86).

Nietzsche’s ideal of a master
race would require the overthrow of all world religions that emphasize divine
authority. He claimed that modern man no
longer needs of the idea of God. He declared that “God is dead” and that the
death of God would eventually lead to the loss of every universal perspective.
Once this happens, there can no longer be any coherent sense of objective
truth. Instead we would be guided in our moral decisions by only our own
perspectives.

Some argue that Nietzsche’s view
renders all truth so subjective that the very idea of truth becomes
meaningless. However, this is not Nietzsche’s intention. He places a high value on truth as blunt
honesty, especially among those who would be masters. What Nietzsche calls
honesty is the opposite of compassion and sympathy. Nietzsche’s highest virtue is cruelty
justified by power. Nietzsche calls
for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their
power and vitality upon the world.
Nietzsche admits that “a philosophy that dares to do this has already
placed itself beyond good and evil” (BGE
7).

Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra about how the Übermensch
(Superman) must create the noble values of power, enthusiasm for war, and world
domination to bring human existence to a new level. “Renouncing war,” Nietzsche
wrote, “means renouncing the great life” (TI
23).

For Nietzsche the “will to power”
is the secret of life and the destiny of humanity. He believes that a historical figure will
arise who will bring perfection to the world.
He describes this figure as a “Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ.”
His methods will include predation and biological engineering (eugenics) of
human populations. Perhaps his entire ethical view is best summarized in this grotesque
statement:

The strong men, the masters, regain
the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can
return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the
same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had
indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he
is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of
what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be
replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding
of a specific species.

Nietzsche has been the subject of
numerous psychological studies. Some
believe that his paranoia and grandiosity were products of a mind affected by
advanced stage syphilis, which he had.
According to the memoirs of his sister, who cared for him, the signs of
third-stage syphilis became acute in the last years of Nietzsche’s life.

Nietzsche devoted much of his
writings to demonstrating that Christianity is irrational and degrading. The
Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard agreed with the first part of Nietzsche’s
evaluation of Christianity, but not the second part. Kierkegaard believed that the validity of Christianity
was not dependent on its reasonableness and that the individual’s unique
identity in the universe is derived from taking possession of his nature as a
creature of God. Far from being degrading, Kierkegaard saw Christianity as
essential to realize both one’s despair and one’s existential duty. Here we see the Kantian aspect of
Kierkegaard’s ethical thought.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Kierkegaard
was a brilliant philosopher who was critical of 18th century
Romanticism’s emphasis on naturalism. He was also critical of Empiricism’s
claim that moral judgment must be based on reason and verifiable data. Kierkegaard believed that the basis for
forming moral judgment is always subjective and that the purpose of Philosophy
should be to enhance the individual’s quality of life and freedom.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche shared an overarching realization
that anything decided to be meaningful or important must come from within the
individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both
regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately
leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each
philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion,
and the role of human freedom in the universe.

In his personal life Kierkegaard suffered from depression.
Before age 21, he lost his mother and five of his family members. He never
married because he regarded marriage as “the deepest form of revelation” and he
doubted that he could so thoroughly self-reveal as to fulfill his ideal of
marriage. His struggle with depression did not keep him from expressing his
ideas. Kierkegaard was an extraordinarily prolific writer, contributing in the
areas of philosophy, theology, psychology and social criticism.

Kierkegaard refers to biblical Abraham as a “knight of faith” and sees him
as the embodiment of his existentialist philosophy. For Kierkegaard, true
individuality comes through surrendering one’s individuality. Abraham discovers
his meaning in the cosmos through losing himself in God, but when one tries to
explain this to another person, the explanation seems absurd.
Kierkegaard wrote:

“If a human being did not have an eternal
consciousness, if underlying everything there were only a wild, fermenting
power that writhing in dark passions produced everything, be it significant or
insignificant, if a vast, never appeased emptiness hid beneath everything, what
would life be then but despair?”

In this statement, Kierkegaard expresses “existential anxiety” or “angst.”
Existential angst is not the same as normal fear. It is not caused by outside events that
signal danger, it never leaves, it touches every area of our lives, and it does
not respond to counseling or cognitive therapy.

Although the term “existentialism” does not appear in Kierkegaard’s writings, he is regarded as the founder of existentialism. He believed that the value of philosophers’ thoughts should be judged by their lives rather than by their intellectual conceptions. According to Kierkegaard, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. A writer's work is an important part of his existence, but his life as a whole is what ultimately matters to God. This is why he was attracted to the lives of the saints, especially John Climacus, a 6th century monk who spent much of his time in solitude, prayer and fasting.

Here are some of Saint John Climacus’ famous sayings:

A Christian is one who
imitated Christ in thought, word and deed. A lover of God is one who lives in
communion with all that is natural and sinless.

Repentance is a
contract with God for a second life. A
penitent inflicts his own punishment upon himself.

Purity is putting on
the nature of angels. It is the
longed-for house of Christ and the earthly heaven of the heart.

He who has tasted the
things on high easily despises what is below. He who has not, only finds joy in
possessions.

Humility is a divine
shelter which prevents us from seeing our achievements.

It is evident from these sayings that John Climacus was
concerned about the cultivation of personal spiritual integrity. This same
focus is found in Kierkegaard’s writings.

Kierkegaard’s esteem for Saint John was such that he published Philosophical Fragments under the pen
name John Climacus. In this work, Kierkegaard poses three questions:

What
is the relationship between history (temporal existence) and human consciousness
(eternal existence)?

Is
there any purpose or meaning to events in our temporal existence other
than historical interest?

Is it
possible to base eternal happiness upon historical knowledge?

Kierkegaard’s solution was to find a link between the historical/temporal
and the eternal/non-temporal. He does that by explaining that knowledge is by
nature miraculous. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual
enlightenment, Kierkegaard argues that learning involves a mysterious change
that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of existential
enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he has
grasped eternal knowledge. Kierkegaard maintains that this miracle of knowledge
is supernatural because it is initiated by God through a series of
historical/temporal events. This
enlightenment is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every
learner.

Kierkegaard further argues that individuals are unable to
know anything that is certain except through this supernatural
enlightenment. In this sense,
Kierkegaard is a Skeptic. He doubts that humans are able of our own faculties
to learn or know anything.

So what makes this miraculous learning possible? Kierkegaard recognizes that human existence
involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an
escape. This desire is very powerful. It
is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity.”

What is the absurdity?
It is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ
entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God can’t be proved by
reason, by experimentation, by logic or through observation. Only by faith in
this divine intervention can one hope to escape the suffering of this life and
move from ignorance to enlightenment. This is the “supernaturalism” of
Kierkegaard’s philosophy and it is clearly the opposite of the naturalism of
Nietzsche and the Romantics.

Whereas Nietzsche
rejected common morality in favor of his immoralism, Kierkegaard regarded
social norms as the universal measure of service to the community. Even human
sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so when
Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is performing a tragic sacrifice
in order that the Greek expedition to Troy
may succeed. Were Abraham’s intention in sacrificing Isaac to gain worldly
success, he would simply be another tragic hero like Agamemnon. But as
Kierkegaard understands the story of Mount Moriah, it is
Abraham’s absolute surrender to God that makes possible his receiving back his
offering and much more. Kierkegaard explains, “Infinite resignation is
the last stage before faith …for only in infinite resignation do I become
conscious of my external validity, and only then can one speak of grasping
existence by virtue of faith.”

Kierkegaard recognizes an
existential duty to a creator God as more authoritative than human social
norms. Ultimately God's definition of the distinction between good and
evil outranks any human definition. Heholds
upbiblical
Abraham's near sacrifice
of his son, not as an example of obedience to social norms, but as the
consequence of a "teleological suspension of the ethical." Abraham
recognizes a duty to obey something higher than his fatherly commitment to his
son and only
proper heir. (Fear and Trembling)

From Kierkegaard's perspective, the distinction between good and evil is
dependent not on social norms but on God. Therefore it is possible for Abraham
to live and act beyond the prescribed norms of his day to fulfill a spiritual
destiny that he alone can fulfill. This renders ethical cases such as Abraham's
problematic, since we have no public policy to guide our decision about whether
Abraham is obeying God's command or is a deluded would-be murderer.

Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy is so personal that it cannot be used to formulate ethical guidelines for society. While existentialism became a popular philosophy in the 20th century, post-modern ethics was influenced more by analytic and linguistic philosophy, and especially the work of the brilliant Ludwig Wittgenstein, who we will consider in Lesson Seven.

Summary

The Modern Era was characterized by revolutions in science
and technology. These breakthroughs or “paradigm shifts” were the result of
gifted and curiosity-driven individuals who worked apart for the scientific
community. This was a natural outcome of the optimism and individualism of the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The scientific method and the industrialization of western
societies produced both benefits and hazards. Many ethical concerns arose as
the direct result of problems such as air and water pollutions, child labor,
growing urban populations, and exploitation of the poor and working classes.
This was a time of social reforms in the areas of suffrage, slavery, and guaranteed
rights for citizens.

There were different approaches to social reform; some were
entirely contradictory. Such is the case with Smith’s capitalism and Marx’s
socialism; and Kant’s deontological ethics and Bentham’s utilitarian ethics.
The opposition of their ideas underscores the Modern Era as a time of
ideological contradiction.

During the Enlightenment and the Modern Era, thinkers
continued to address the question of happiness as the chief Good. For Hobbes,
happiness meant being protected by the State. For Rousseau, it meant returning
to Nature to live as the Noble Savage, without interference from the State. For
Descartes it meant loving life
without fear of death. He wrote, "One of the main points of my own ethical
code is to love life without fearing death.”

In Bentham’s
utilitarian ethics, happiness requires that laws be based on of his principle
of extension. A good law will be felt across the social spectrum as beneficial,
not detrimental. He developed a system for measuring the level and extent of
happiness – his “felicific calculus.” He wrote, “It is the greatest good to the
greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.” Bentham’s
approach seems to work best in smaller, more homogeneous societies, such as England
was in his time. In multicultural societies it is much more difficult to
formulate laws that benefit everyone. Consider how difficult it has been for
Congress to agree on the issues of gun control and immigration reform.

For Nietzsche,
the “will to power” was the secret of a good life and the destiny of humanity.
He believed that history tells the story of masters and slaves. Masters are the
heroic figures because they establish their own moral guidelines. They are
above the law that binds slaves, and autonomous of the moral conventions of
society. Happiness for Nietzsche results when one places oneself beyond good
and evil (immoralism).

Kierkegaard held
that true fulfillment is found only when the individual surrenders
individuality by losing oneself in God. Like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard recognizes
a moral authority greater than that of social norms, but he rejects Nietzsche’s
“will to power” as the highest moral duty. Instead, Kierkegaard recognizes an
existential duty to God as the Creator. While Nietzsche urges going beyond good
and evil, Kierkegaard argues that the distinction between good and evil is
dependent on God in whom the individual’s spiritual destiny rests. In this,
Kierkegaard is closer to Kant’s idea of happiness and God is as being
intrinsically connected and the “ideal of the supreme good.”

Nihilists viewed
modern life as meaningless. The search for meaning was expressed in these lines
from a T.S. Elliot poem:

Where is the Life we have lost in living?

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in
information?

(Choruses from
"The Rock”)

Darwin was taken as an authority on human
evolution (though he never studied any human fossils en situ), and the idea developed that humans are in no way special.
They are simply animals who have adapted better than their inferior ape
relatives. The special nature of humans was further diminished by popular
speculation that the universe may contain creatures far superior to humans.

Social Darwinism
became a platform for elitist attitudes toward the poor and minorities and led
to sterilization projects. Marx advocated a worldwide workers’ revolt and went
so far as to exalt a world without his own Jewish people. Nietzsche likewise
blamed the Jews for “a transvaluation of values.” This anti-Jewish sentiment
continued to build in Germany
and was appropriated by Hitler. Because of these ideological threads, the
Modern Era became a period in which the rights of life, liberty and private
property were blatantly violated in Europe and America.